Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the experimental routing status, the date the last candidate was retired, that results feed a comparison against the stable router, and that there is no fallback because this is a full working router. These are behavioral details an agent needs and cannot infer from readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The beta/equivalence framing is front-loaded, followed by current status, usage guidance, and the no-fallback clarification. Each sentence, including the retirement date and comparison note, helps an agent decide whether to call this tool, with no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex universal router with no output schema, the description supplies the sibling relationship, current equivalence, experimental-routing behavior, and fallback guarantee. Parameter details are carried by the schema, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the packs parameter is already fully documented with scoping, ignored slugs, and full-catalog fallback semantics. The description only says the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx and adds no alias or parameter-specific detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and states it is the same universal router with the same 7,166 tools, arguments, and response shape, while adding live candidate routing. This lets an agent distinguish it from the stable sibling without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted, and notes that no candidate is currently active so it presently matches the stable router exactly. It also names the alternative routing path and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.